Diesels About To Get Expensive????

[irocfan]

Super Slo Mo said:

Captainawesome said:

When a car is in first gear, I expect it to go when I put my foot down, at least a little bit, not wait for 2 seconds for the fecking turbo to kick in before it will actually do anything.

That's more a characteristic of turbocharged engines than diesels specifically. Off boost they are relatively sluggish.

that's why you need a supercharger

[Super Slo Mo]

irocfan said:

that's why you need a supercharger

Absolutely, can't argue with that!

[CraigyMc]

irocfan said:

Super Slo Mo said:

Captainawesome said:

When a car is in first gear, I expect it to go when I put my foot down, at least a little bit, not wait for 2 seconds for the fecking turbo to kick in before it will actually do anything.

That's more a characteristic of turbocharged engines than diesels specifically. Off boost they are relatively sluggish.

that's why you need a supercharger

He'll end up in a prius because of all the torque from zero RPM.

What's so wrong with bringing the engine up to usable torque range and using the clutch in the way it was designed anyway?

[Fastdruid]

Super Slo Mo said:

Captainawesome said:

When a car is in first gear, I expect it to go when I put my foot down, at least a little bit, not wait for 2 seconds for the fecking turbo to kick in before it will actually do anything.

That's more a characteristic of turbocharged engines than diesels specifically. Off boost they are relatively sluggish.

Mine isn't and neither is my wife's.

Mine (2.5T) is almost lag free unless you really really try hard and even then there is still power. My wife's (2.3T) has lag but that just that more power comes in rather than there's nothing until the turbo spools. More a case of "some power, wait a second, POWER!!!!" than "nothing, nothing, nothing, nothing, nothing, nothing, POWER!"

[daemon]

Captainawesome said:

When a car is in first gear, I expect it to go when I put my foot down, at least a little bit, not wait for 2 seconds for the fecking turbo to kick in before it will actually do anything.

And therein lies YOUR problem - you not understanding the characteristics of the car buy expecting there to be power everywhere as per your M3.

Frankly any prick can put their foot down in an m3 and make it go.

[daemon]

CraigyMc said:

What's so wrong with bringing the engine up to usable torque range and using the clutch in the way it was designed anyway?

Because that would suggest you are your skills to adjust to the car, rather than sitting there waiting to die at a roundabout because you were in the wrong gear.

I guess in many ways its Darwinism in action?

[Devil2575]

Fastdruid said:

CraigyMc said:

My 320d ED will do 1050 miles on a 63l tank.

I'm sure it will but a 320i is cheaper until you're doing >18k/year.

Is it?

I was looking at BMW 3 series recently and the 320d was not really much more expensive than the 320i.

2011 320d ED with 47k in a BMW dealer up for about 14k
2011 320i with 44k in a BMW dealer up for about 13.5k

The difference being availability, there are a lot more diesels out there than Petrols.

I think that if you do a lot of short trips and a lowish annual milage then a petrol makes more sense. If you do a lot of long runs, even if your annual milage isn't that massive then a diesel makes more sense. In my experience, round the doors diesels don't have a massive advantage over petrols and are more likely to have problems. However once you get onto the open road and are cruising at constant speeds then the difference becomes more significant. Where the advantage falls down is if you have a heavy right foot. I could get an E39 530i to get high 30s mpg on a run if I stuck to 70 mph but if I do 80-90 in my wifes diesel Mazda 6 it will only get low to mid 40s. However stick to 70 mpg and the Mazda will do 50+ mpg all day long.

However there is a big problem with petrol now, an almost complete lack of availability of them in certain makes/models

I'm looking for a new car for my wife, a people carrier alas, and she fancies an S-Max. However her annual milage is now only about 6k a year most of which is shortish runs. So a petrol is really what she needs. The problem is that out of the 135 on AT in budget and within a 200 mile radius of us only 7 are petrol and all are quite old and highish milage. The same can be said of the Galaxy.
In short if you want an S-Max and you don't want to wait for the right car or drives miles to find it then you have no real choice. Don't even think about the 2.5T because they're like hens teeth.

[Devil2575]

CraigyMc said:

irocfan said:

Super Slo Mo said:

Captainawesome said:

When a car is in first gear, I expect it to go when I put my foot down, at least a little bit, not wait for 2 seconds for the fecking turbo to kick in before it will actually do anything.

That's more a characteristic of turbocharged engines than diesels specifically. Off boost they are relatively sluggish.

that's why you need a supercharger

He'll end up in a prius because of all the torque from zero RPM.

What's so wrong with bringing the engine up to usable torque range and using the clutch in the way it was designed anyway?

The issue is people look for justifications as to why they hate them so they come out with stuff like this.

The real issue is that he just doen't like them, not that there is anything really wrong with them.

I don't much like them either. I don't find diesels fun or engaging and the limited power band in many coupled to long gears simply makes petrols more enjoyable to drive, IMHO. However as a technical solution to a problem of how to propel a car economically diesel kicks petrols arse in most circumstances. As an engineer I admire diesels but I don't desire them.

[daemon]

Devil2575 said:

I don't much like them either. I don't find diesels fun or engaging and the limited power band in many coupled to long gears simply makes petrols more enjoyable to drive, IMHO. However as a technical solution to a problem of how to propel a car economically diesel kicks petrols arse in most circumstances. As an engineer I admire diesels but I don't desire them.

+1

They're a solution to a problem. Mine does exactly what it says on the tin.

[Fastdruid]

Devil2575 said:

Is it?

I was looking at BMW 3 series recently and the 320d was not really much more expensive than the 320i.

2011 320d ED with 47k in a BMW dealer up for about 14k
2011 320i with 44k in a BMW dealer up for about 13.5k

Yes. But as with everything you can find exceptions or specific examples. Was the spec totally identical between those two? Was it a base 320d vs an M-Spirt 320i for example? Did the 320d have every panel marked, etc etc etc. That price would appear to be bang on for a 320d but a 320i SE should be ~12k and an M-sport 320i about 14k.

For the exact same spec, taking a lease over three years or assuming the list price and selling at "trade in" again over three years and the 320i is cheaper. Assumes a lot obviously, mostly that you'll do the avg claimed mpg.

[CraigyMc]

The general tone of these threads often boils down to a certain set of PHers expressing an opinion that diesel owners are somehow a joyless set of creatures.

I drive one because I find road cars driven on the road to be boring because of the current law, and the diesel road car frees up money for circuit and other fun activities. It's not that I can't drive fast (example: current PB on Bedford west is 76.9s in a JP-LM on a recent Palmersport day) or behave like a hooligan (see pic), it's that I don't want to do it on UK roads because of the legal implications.


I compete in clubman karting most weekends. I'm not gods gift, but I give most people a run for their money.

If the laws around speeding and dangerous driving were abolished, I'd probably not have the sensible diesel car I have a the moment, but since the law is getting stricter rather than looser, there's little point in having something amazing for the road.

Even the M3 (supercharged) sucks on a track against proper race cars, so I don't see the reason to compromise. Have a boring road car, and have a non-road-legal race car (or hire same, which is what I do).

[CraigyMc]

Fastdruid said:

For the exact same spec, taking a lease over three years or assuming the list price and selling at "trade in" again over three years and the 320i is cheaper.

For the two leasing companies I had quotes for, your information is incorrect. The 320d ED was cheaper for both.

[austinsmirk]

weirdly, in an obsessive way I did a price comparision of one of my cars last night.

so 2.0l D mondeo v 2.0l Petrol mondeo. Titanium spec (the top one v all the lesser base ones)

exact miles, spec, model. I think they're a bit different to perhaps yr bmw's etc as they are rammed full of kit to begin with, so its hardly like someone is going to go silly with options. however they are just a workmanlike vehicle, a white good in my view and its news to me that a ford owner will be wanting to fit some expensive suspension option for example as perhaps you can in a bmw.

so for cars worth circa £11k.......... there is just no difference between P V D in miles, spec, trim, model etc.

with yr money, you could have either. this includes their 2.0 or 2.5 l petrol too- the 2.5 being the slightly quick one.

what is obvious is there is significantly less petrol cars about for sale. no surprise there really.

like perhaps the gut of this thread, its just pure personal choice as to what you want to run.


But on my limited piece of research, on one brand only: there is feck all argument for buying a petrol car, even if you do less miles, based on the fact its substantially cheaper to run.

I'd also say my servicing and MOT costs me a huge £15 a month on a ford service plan. After 4 years of ownership I'm still clearly having nightmares about the mysterious onslaught of faults that the tractor engine under the bonnet is about to have of course.

I can barely sleep for worrying ...........

[Devil2575]

Fastdruid said:

Devil2575 said:

Is it?

I was looking at BMW 3 series recently and the 320d was not really much more expensive than the 320i.

2011 320d ED with 47k in a BMW dealer up for about 14k
2011 320i with 44k in a BMW dealer up for about 13.5k

Yes. But as with everything you can find exceptions or specific examples. Was the spec totally identical between those two? Was it a base 320d vs an M-Spirt 320i for example? Did the 320d have every panel marked, etc etc etc. That price would appear to be bang on for a 320d but a 320i SE should be ~12k and an M-sport 320i about 14k.

For the exact same spec, taking a lease over three years or assuming the list price and selling at "trade in" again over three years and the 320i is cheaper. Assumes a lot obviously, mostly that you'll do the avg claimed mpg.

The cars with both the same spec although I didn't check options. Both were on a main dealer forcourt so if either have marked pannels then i'd be amazed.

These were just a couple of examples i found and happened to be the first two main dealer cars I foyund in each search that were the same age/milage. However a quick scan of more of the results shows there isn't a massive difference in price.

Honest john gives the average real mpg for the E90 320d (not the ED) as 48.4 mpg and the 320i as 35.5 mpg.

I don't know if these numbers reflect the 2011 versions or not but it's a 37% improvement in mpg for the diesel over the petrol which is pretty significant.

If you do 12k a year then based on fuel prices in my area you will save about £500 a year with the diesel in fuel plus another £125 on VED.

A quick check of lease prices, just using one source:
http://www.allcarleasing.co.uk/

It gives a range of lease costs for the 320d ED in manual form with no options ranging from £298.99 - 359.93 a month. For a 320d the range is £322.84 - 331.95. So even taking the largest difference that is still only 37.09 a month or £445 a year. In reality there doesn't appear to be much difference in the cost of leases, at least using this website.

This was the first and only source I checked for lease prices so i accept figures will be different elesewhere.

On the face of it I can't see a massive differential in purchase price and although the savings on 12k a year are not massive they are there.

[daemon]

CraigyMc said:

Even the M3 (supercharged) sucks on a track against proper race cars, so I don't see the reason to compromise. Have a boring road car, and have a non-road-legal race car (or hire same, which is what I do).

No, no, no.

Its all about the power mate. The acceleration, the handling.

How are you supposed to wave your willy at people as you roar past when your car isnt even road legal??

[Fastdruid]

I make it ~£28 a month in fuel between a 320i and 320d at 12k (for the F30).

Now personally for £371/year extra I'd get the petrol anyway but I was looking at LINGsCARs, 320i SE £471, 320d SE 520 (VED included) so at 12k/year the 320i is roughly £21/month cheaper (although those prices are for 10k/year).

TBH I didn't look much further as I wasn't actually interested in a 320 (i or d) so it's not that surprising that if you look round you can get some fantastic deals on the 320d which takes the on paper advantage of the 320i away and makes the 320d cheaper.

[daemon]

Fastdruid said:

I make it ~£28 a month in fuel between a 320i and 320d at 12k (for the F30).

Now personally for £371/year extra I'd get the petrol anyway but I was looking at LINGsCARs, 320i SE £471, 320d SE 520 (VED included) so at 12k/year the 320i is roughly £21/month cheaper (although those prices are for 10k/year).

TBH I didn't look much further as I wasn't actually interested in a 320 (i or d) so it's not that surprising that if you look round you can get some fantastic deals on the 320d which takes the on paper advantage of the 320i away and makes the 320d cheaper.

I was going to ask was the new 320i anyway decent - i remember driving a four pot 320i before once and it was awful. BUT i think the new ones are the turbo models like my wifes z4?

Could be wrong

[Fastdruid]

Yes it's a 2.0T, it's meant to be good.

[daemon]

Fastdruid said:

Yes it's a 2.0T, it's meant to be good.

Yes its good in the z4. Not as good as the straight six 3.0Si previous one she had, but v good for a four pot.

[uk_vette]

daemon said:

If you're only doing 10-12k a year i wouldnt even be considering a diesel.

The 1.8 VTEC petrol has an honest john real MPG figure of 40mpg. The 2.2CDTI is going to give around 48mpg, so i suspect over the 1.8 you're going to gain around 8mpg.

My son had a 1.8 VTEC and he was getting around 38mpg, went to a 120d M Sport thinking he was going to get a big fuel saving and hes getting 46mpg in it - although economy wasnt his primary reason for changing.

As you say you'll buy a younger better spec'd lower miles car for your money, compared to the diesel variant.

.
.
Civic 1,8L and BMW 320d E46.

We have both.
Wife drives Civic and get average of 47 mpg back and forth to work.
Work return is 34 miles motorway, and 6 miles A road, 40 miles per day.

I drive the 320d and get average of 62 mpg back and forth to work, 40 miles motorway, and about 8 miles A road. 48 miles daily trip.

The diesel BMW is way more economical, even when you factor in the extra few pence per liter for fuel.

Paid £4200 for the 2008 Civic, and £1200 for the 2003 BMW.